Something perverse happened after the Supreme Courts decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. Thats what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but dont realize they really won.

The Left wins even when they lose, and conservatives are often bewildered and outfoxed in the election-process game.

Earlier today, I called the decision a nothingburger. After re-reading the case and reflecting a bit more, its clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left and their victory cackles are hollow  and they know it.

Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.

In the last year, Ive litigated five NVRA cases and worked on the preemption issues for years, and there is more to cheer in todays opinion than there is to bemoan. Those complaining about the opinion dont understand what the Lefts goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.

From my time in the Justice Department Voting Section, I can remember intimately the wars over some of the preemption issues decided today.

The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. There were complex fights over the citizen check-off box issues, with the Left wanting the box rendered meaningless, and conservatives and election-integrity proponents believing a registration cannot be processed until a registrant affirms on the box that he or she is a citizen.

Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:

● Invalidation of Arizonas requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.

● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.

● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.

● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.

So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalias opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.

How does it work? The decision today uncorks state power. The Left wanted state power stripped and they lost.

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.

You might say, Thats a small victory. Nonsense. This was the whole ballgame to the groups pushing the Arizona lawsuit. They lost, period.

Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance.

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form. The Left wanted the submission of a federal form to mean automatic no-questions-asked registration. This is a big loss for the Left because now states can put suspect forms in limbo while they run checks against non-citizen databases and jury-response forms. Another significant victory in todays decision. The Left wanted to strip them of that double-checking power.

The decision today is a great example of how conservatives can be distracted by squirrels running past. It is understandable and forgivable because they arent daily immersed in the long-term election-process agenda of the left-wing groups. Nor do they daily involve themselves with the details of election process. But having been in the preemption wars for nearly a decade, I can assure you this case is a big win, even if it doesnt appear so at first glance.

It seems to me that the only way that this will really benefit the nation is if swing states and Marxist states (the usual suspects) enact positive voter ID/verification.It doesn’t make much difference if Wyoming,for example,enacts it.

4
posted on 06/17/2013 8:08:35 PM PDT
by Gay State Conservative
(The Civil Servants Are No Longer Servants...Or Civil.)

didn’t even dawn on me who the author was...this is the same guy who blew the whistle on the racism in the DOJ and the voting fraud arm of the DOJ- hence if this was bad news i think he’d be flipping out...

15
posted on 06/17/2013 8:21:15 PM PDT
by God luvs America
(63.5 million pay no income tax and vote for DemoKrats...)

"After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form."

This is a hint to the red states and purple states where election integrity is a front burner issue. It is not a Left or Right issue, but an issue of those who (still) have faith in the election process and those who want to subvert it for purposes of maintaining power--and both parties have their minions and hangers on who want to suppress the vote.

I am not a lawyer but I am an administrator, i.e. bureaucrat, and I saw this as a no brainer. States cannot alter or change how a Federal form is used or change instructions for filling them out. What I did not understand is why the state create it's own forms and rules to do what the federal form does not. Thanks for the explanation it really helped me understand what the issue really was.

This article is epic. I was thinking the SCOTUS shot an arrow through the heart of State's Voter ID laws. Turns out all it did was tell Arizona they can't use Federal forms to require ID, but can use State forms to do it. I think.

What I find disturbing about this is that , due to the complexity of the bureaucracy, this may be a win, but I fully expect that liberals will, knowing that even plugged in and well informed voters may not grasp it, obfuscate, break the law, then obfuscate some more when called on it.

It is like trying to explain Whitewater to someone. Their eyes begin to glaze.

You know, this is something like the third or fourth SCOTUS case in the last couple years with a “strange bedfellows” alignment of the Liberal bloc and some of the Conservatives where the initial reaction has been that of a huge victory for the Left but upon reflection looks like sly victory for Conservatives.

I’m wondering if the Conservatives on the Court have figured out a way of manipulating the Liberals into Conservative-favoring majority opinions. Give up on some minor point to win several major points and walk away with a solid 6-3 or even more solid 7-2 majority that dispels the notion of partisan bias.

Even though I strenuously disagree with the decision (”strenuously” isn’t actually a strong enough word for my feeling on this - the damn thing should have been struck down immediately and in it’s entirety), I have wondered if that’s what Roberts was trying for with the ObamaCare opinion. While the opinion left the piece of garbage standing under the auspices of the Gvt’s ability to tax, Roberts pulled all four Liberal Justices into supporting a majority opinion that defined - for the first real time since the New Deal iirc - good limits on what the Federal Gvt can do in the face of the 10th Amendment.

I still wonder what what caused Thomas and Alito to be the two dissenting votes.

Maybe they wanted to be batting 1.000 instead of .800

There's that. Or ...

They may have been playing the "bad cop" role to allow the "good cop" (Scalia) to craft a majority opinion that traded one point for getting the Liberal Bloc to sign onto a 80% Conservative majority opinion.

Ok, great, if what he says is true. But how do we know states will use their form over the federal form (gathering dust in the back room, like he says)? What’s to stop libs from starting all over and suing states to force them to use the federal form ? What’s to stop lib 501c3’s or 4’s from handing out federal forms 3 or 4 days before an election and telling people to use them over state forms?

47
posted on 06/17/2013 8:56:18 PM PDT
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.